Me: If the Scr was clear enough for the CFs to properly understand it, then it's clear enough for someone today to properly understand it. "
John, anonymous Eastern Orthodox commenter who apparently sees fit to speak for Orthodoxy: That assumes that some random John Smith has equal spiritial and theological skills as the greatest minds in God's church which is led by the Holy Spirit. Quite an arrogant claim.
Me: Wrong.
1) Assumes that God speaks sufficiently clearly.
2) And takes into acct the fact that we have responsibility assigned by Jesus to properly interp the word of God, and
3) to dismiss traditions of men that make void the word of God (Mark 7:1-10).
John: Of course you won't accept the me and my bible under a tree accusation, but you'll pull out this nonsense when I suggest you listen to greater saints.
Me: 1) Maybe b/c that's a false dilemma. Just maybe.
2) If Jesus told us it was indeed me and my Bible under a tree, then I'm sticking with Him. Deal with what Jesus said.
John: If Jesus said to worship pink unicorns, I guess you will stick with that too.
14 comments:
That's funny - if Jesus had said that, would He still fit the specifications as The Messiah? Hmm...
That assumes that some random John Smith has equal spiritial and theological skills as the greatest minds in God's church
How does one determine who are the greatest minds in God's church?
Would Ambrose and Calvin both make the grade? Why or why not?
An unusual criticism for a Protestant since Luther famously said "if Jesus said I should eat dung, I would most gladly do it". Did the hypothetical indicate Luther believed Christ may have actually advocated it? And if what I said offends, no doubt when Luther said “Be a sinner and sin boldly!” “Let your sins be strong!” “Sin bravely!” would offend too.
If hyperbole offends, may I suggest anathematising Luther, since he was surely its most eloquent spokesman. Then when you're done criticising him, maybe you'll have a right to move onto me.
And may I suggest that someone calling himself Rhoblogy doesn't have much cause for discussing anonymity? Apparently since you seem to want to claim to speak for God.
Name's Rhology, the blog is Rhoblogy.
I don't speak for God. I parrot His words. You do speak for EOC, since you can't identify what EOC has infallibly/officially said, at least not infallibly. You can claim to, but claims are just that - claims. You're an anonymous person trying to say "The infallible church says such and so", but I don't see any reason why anyone should accept it. Our situations are quite diff b/c of the nature of our religious epistemologies.
You do a lot more than parrot the bible. Why not shut this blog down and replace it with a link to the bible online?
A MUCH better question is why you think you can accurately represent EO teaching with your individual, fallible interpretations.
No, a better question, or at least an equally good one is what makes you think you can accurately represent God's word with your individual, fallible interpretations.
No, a better question, or at least an equally good one is what makes you think you can accurately represent the pronouncements of the church with your individual, fallible interpretations.
Ah, boys, tryin' to win arguments can get tedious.
I think someone should get you fellas a sandbox for Christmas, and then you can have some REAL fun.
Nah, nah. I'm right, you're wrong. So there! Nah ah, I'm right and you're wrong! Now duck unless you want some sand in the face! Toooo bad, ya didn't duck soon enough. :)
I'm just sure that between the back and forth here between John and Rho on this thread that the truth is glaringly obvious who the genuine Christian is.
Whatever happened to that thang called love and mercy? Why honey, it done got tossed right out the winda. Who needs sissified thangs when we's got the TRUTH on OUR side!
"what makes you think you can accurately represent the pronouncements of the church with your individual, fallible interpretations."
That would be an interesting retort if I had been the one who started this exchange, but since I didn't, all you've done is reach stalemate.
Since the EO position is the one always claiming the epistemic advantage b/c of its much-ballyhooed unity and b/c of its infallible interpreter, that's all I'm after when I've been making these arguments. They're not arguments FOR my position. They're meant to show your common argument is false.
The trouble with this is that we make the claim that WE - the people in the Church are part of the infallible interpreter known as "The Church", whereas you do not claim to be part of scripture. That's where your attempted analogy falls apart and splinters into a million pieces. Thus we are consistent with our claims, and you are not.
Oh, put a bunch of fallible ppl together and they're infallible?
How does that work?
Besides, when The Church speaks, it's not YOU speaking. When's the last time you had anything whatsoever to do with the EOC's saying anything?
How does it work? What sort of question is that? How does it work that a fallible person writes his thoughts down and it can become scripture. Once you nut that one out you'll have the answer.
"Besides, when The Church speaks, it's not YOU speaking. When's the last time you had anything whatsoever to do with the EOC's saying anything?"
The Church doesn't do much without consulting widely. Metropolitans don't do anything without consulting the bishops. Bishops don't do anything radical without consulting with their priests. Priests are in contact with the sentiment of the people. So when the Church speaks, it is in part because of what individuals like me had to say.
Post a Comment